On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 01:00:58AM +0200, Jochen Voss wrote:
> Hello,
This is off-topic for debian-devel -- we have a -vote list for discussion
of votes, please use it. Followups to -vote.
In,
> http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/comp/vote.html
you claim:
] Generalised Strategy-Free Criterion (GSFC):
] These do not hold.
] Example: Q=1, only vote: AD
] A is the "Ideal Democratic Winner" and the only member of the Smith
] set. It is also prefered by a majority to D. But the default option
] D wins.
] Weak Defensive Strategy Criterion (WDSC):
] These do not hold.
] If there are not enough voters, the majority has no way to prevent
] the default option from winning.
But these are simply not meaningful claims to make. The default option
is not like other options and it is not useful to apply voting criteria
to it.
Both these cases are examples of not meeting quorum -- and would be the
case whether there a per option quorum or a global quorum.
The various criteria that the election methods sites use assume that
enough people are voting to make a decision, and ignore supermajority
concerns; that the criteria are violated when you don't make that
assumption, or ignore that concern shouldn't be surprising, and isn't
particularly informative.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations --
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Attachment:
pgpoKb6yc24pD.pgp
Description: PGP signature